All four of these points can basically be boiled down to this argument:
There is an ideal distribution of resources, and given perfect knowledge and perfect morality, the price of an item would always reflect that ideal distribution, and would therefore be it's intrinsic value.
I can't really argue with that, except to say that the "ideal" is variable, and mankind does not have perfect knowledge, nor perfect morality. Nor can you deduce what the market price would be in such a situation from any information in the real world.
All that you can know is that the price of an item will asymptotically approach the price it would have in that ideal, which, as I said, is itself a moving target.
I would like to add to this point by myrkul, the "Ideal distribution of resources" much like anarcho-communism is an unachievable state because of the numerous shortcoming myrkul lays out. But if such a state were to exist it would by definition no longer have any need for prices at all. Prices exist as corrective signals which communicate shortages and gluts, the perfect distribution thus no longer needs prices and would become pure exchange. Nor would such a state have any innovation, changes in taste or preference or any opportunity for profit, arbitrage or investment. In other-words it would be a dead wax-replica of the real world. The OP's fault lies in trying to project Platonic ideals onto the economy and prices in particular as he creates the notion of an almost other-worldly perfect price of which our real prices are but pale shadows of on the back wall of a stock exchange. Platonic ideals are deservedly one of the most repudiated concepts in the history of philosophy and projecting them onto prices is a gross absurdity.